See! For every idiot, there is an even greater idiot.
Poll : What you like most?
Closed since :
BBC
73
None
5
Both
4
ITV
2
See! For every idiot, there is an even greater idiot.
Jesus....there a bigger idiot than Intrepid out there somewhere.
I would like to see more TV channels and businesses have the opportunity to come into the market with their new concepts and ideas. I would like people to have the opportunity to pay for what THEY want to watch and see.
YouTube is a purely commercial entity I don't have to pay for and I don't think anyone can deny they spend as much time on that than the BBC.
Do I see anyone complaining about the fact they can endlessly post LFS vids on there for free???? Nope hhmm...
No, I think that if there is one, they probably died from suffocation... by forgetting to breathe...
:hide:
:hide:
The thing is, if you're in America you can decide not to pay for the guff if you dont want to. If you want to buy a TV to watch stuff, you don't have to pay a tax on threat of imprisonment. I mean, in this day and age, what kind of a f***ed up country still does that? Oh wait...
AGAIN absolute bollox. You don't know what would happen! Again people not engaging brain!
At last a forward thinker
See these guys probably don't understand the fear some people have got from the licence money collectors. I recall one story an old lady was threatened because she paid a fee for black and white receiving, but because her VDEO RECORDER received colour she had to pay more. Threats were sent etc...
Imagine her then switching to BBCThree to see a grown man with a tiny penis trying jerk off! After that trauma. What an INSULT!
But then, I really doubt she would have switched over to such a show, since she would not be in the target audience.
You know that ultimately you lose, because the BBC is operating under a royal charter, which actually dictates that the BBC is required to be free from political and commercial influence, and to answer only to its viewers and listeners. The people that run the BBC have to be appointed by the Queen. You're lucky you can even have any say in what they broadcast, they could just make programs about how awesome the Queen is and show that 24/7.
Seriously, if my License Fee only serve to provide an alternative to the like of sensationlised news from ITV and SKY then it's freaking worth it.
Lets be honest here, if I failed to pay my council tax, what do you think would happen. I would be facing threat of imprisonment.
Or instead you could have people watching 27 minutes of adverts along with 3 minutes of people going "YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!".
That wont stop me from makng a guess though.
Using my incredible powers of deduction I worked out that british TV minus BBC = No Top Gear which leaves us with Fifth Gear only, perhaps the Top Gear team would be invloved in Fifth instead, but unless the format changed to a live format instead of a magazine format, it would suck.
We all don't mind the system as it is, most of us here pay our Tv licenses and watch TV and don't give a shit how the TV business rolls, we don't want to hear one deluded kiddie on his sopabox demanding we all share his opinions.
Do you actually watch the BBC? haha! The BBC is very clever at not appearing bias in anyway. It's what they choose not to show that is more interesting.
Firstly go to the Top Gear thread on the forum. You may notice some all already becoming tired of it. If the BBC went maybe it would die too. Who knows?
Maybe a new channel would buy it up, or someone else invest. Dave can run a whole TV station showing endless repeats of it so their are multiple opportunities there for investment.
I don;t know what would happen. One thing is for sure. I wouldn't have to pay £100+ a year on a organisation I only listen or watch 5% of it;s output.
Your assuming ITV and SKY would be the same without the BBC. I suspect they are only like that BECAUSE of the BBC. How else can the get viewers?
Well thats your problem, but its available to you, personally I watch BBC news every day at least, we might as well get our money's worth.
TBH they should have just bundled the fixed TV license payment in with income or council tax, so that idiots wouldn't notice they were paying it and would shut up.
You do have a good point, I would rather you spent that £100 on contraception to prevent any accidental breeding on your part, that might actually be a more valuable contribution to society. I do like the way you choose to think your money is being spent on shows about penises, if you like 5% of the shows why not just assume your pathetic £100 is being spent on the 5% you like, then you might not be so wound up about something so pointless.
Because out there, there are some people that only like shows about penises. Maybe they think all the other shows are a waste of their 100 GBP?
The question asked was is ITV's coverage of F1 better or is BBC's coverage better.
My honest opinion was that the BBC give better coverage. The funding model meens no advertisements, the BBC have a better team (No James Allen or Steve Ryder who I hated to endure/watch) and that I liked and made use of iPlayer.
In response to this I am told I am a moron:
I refute the accusation that I am a moron for enjoying better coverage that shows the whole race, doesnt hide the action that ocurred in advertisement breaks in order not to draw attention to how the adverts have caused me to miss things, I refute the accusation that I am a moron for enjoying better presenters.
It was a two-part accusation however, one that ended up in a 3 page rant that I dont care to read.
What I will say is that in broadcasting the BBC is envied the world over for it's production standards. The accuser listed as examples of diabolical shows some programs that I enjoy, including one of my favorites "2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps". I make this point purely to dismiss the argument as "subjective". 90% of any channels content is disliked by most of it's viewers, this is why people only watch a given TV for so little time. They flick between channels looking for shows they like.
The BBC carries a disproportionately high number of viewers despite having to show a disproportionately high quantity of public service and minority interest programs. This is because the overall standard of it's product is higher than most other channels.
Of course, we could watch F1 on American television instead and enjoy 50% advertisement breaks, product placement, fake "live" coverage, clueless commentators and so many onscreen tickers we cant actually spot the cars onscreen.
Or maybe we should get Spanish coverage, I remember watching a race in Spain, the commentary spoke an aweful lot of Pedro de la Rossa (a driver who I think is substantially underrated). However, at the time Pedro was driving an Arrows and was a back marker. At one point his team mate spun off and the commentator screamed "NOOOOO" for around 30 seconds before realising it was his team mate.
Personally, i'd rather watch my F1 on the Beeb, and with my weekends usually occupied with things that keep me away from my parents TV, i'll probably be watching it on iPlayer.
It's my personal view, having witnessed coverage in a few other countries over the years, that the current BBC broadcasts are the best F1 coverage I have ever seen, I only wish the racing was better.
So call me a moron if you like, but I answered the question that was asked you moron.
My honest opinion was that the BBC give better coverage. The funding model meens no advertisements, the BBC have a better team (No James Allen or Steve Ryder who I hated to endure/watch) and that I liked and made use of iPlayer.
In response to this I am told I am a moron:
I refute the accusation that I am a moron for enjoying better coverage that shows the whole race, doesnt hide the action that ocurred in advertisement breaks in order not to draw attention to how the adverts have caused me to miss things, I refute the accusation that I am a moron for enjoying better presenters.
It was a two-part accusation however, one that ended up in a 3 page rant that I dont care to read.
What I will say is that in broadcasting the BBC is envied the world over for it's production standards. The accuser listed as examples of diabolical shows some programs that I enjoy, including one of my favorites "2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps". I make this point purely to dismiss the argument as "subjective". 90% of any channels content is disliked by most of it's viewers, this is why people only watch a given TV for so little time. They flick between channels looking for shows they like.
The BBC carries a disproportionately high number of viewers despite having to show a disproportionately high quantity of public service and minority interest programs. This is because the overall standard of it's product is higher than most other channels.
Of course, we could watch F1 on American television instead and enjoy 50% advertisement breaks, product placement, fake "live" coverage, clueless commentators and so many onscreen tickers we cant actually spot the cars onscreen.
Or maybe we should get Spanish coverage, I remember watching a race in Spain, the commentary spoke an aweful lot of Pedro de la Rossa (a driver who I think is substantially underrated). However, at the time Pedro was driving an Arrows and was a back marker. At one point his team mate spun off and the commentator screamed "NOOOOO" for around 30 seconds before realising it was his team mate.
Personally, i'd rather watch my F1 on the Beeb, and with my weekends usually occupied with things that keep me away from my parents TV, i'll probably be watching it on iPlayer.
It's my personal view, having witnessed coverage in a few other countries over the years, that the current BBC broadcasts are the best F1 coverage I have ever seen, I only wish the racing was better.
So call me a moron if you like, but I answered the question that was asked you moron.
Actually when the West launched their illegal invasion of Iraq and the BBC was producing news coverage that was truly independent and unbiased the government where loosing the propaganda war on the homefront, I remember revolutionary talk in streets, and for a while the Labour government where on very shaky grounds.
One of the measures the government, not the Queen, took was to topple Greg Dyke (the Director-General of the BBC). Although Greg Dyke was a Labour party member, he believed in impartial news coverage. The government forced him to resign and installed a puppet (Mark Bayford )who was willing to present the news in a more pro-government friendly manner. Dyke would leave the Labour party soon after and joined the Liberal Democrats.
When Mark Thompson took over from Bayford as the Director-General Bayford remained incharge of news and journalism at the BBC as part of the program of increased government control of national media that was installed in 2004 under a wartime edict.
The BBC is no longer impartial, and has not been since 2004. Coincidentally, I stopped reading and watching the news and papers etc soon after. I tried for a while to watch Al Jazeera, but that was too imbalanced, I got to the point of forming some pretty strong opinions of politics and havnt paid much attention to anything ever since, i'm much happier now.
The alternative is not an unknown, it's available all over the world. It seems quite obvious you've never lived in a country where commercial TV is the only option so unfortunately your opinion has no credibility whatsoever.
As for the coverage, the BBC have done OK so far. It's worth remembering that it was ITV that raised the bar (the BBC coverage prior to that was dreadful) so they are largely to thank for the quality of the BBC coverage.
It is an unfair comparison given the extra channels and resources the BBC has but overall I'd say they've done a solid job. It's great to see the practice sessions live, Jake Humphrey is excellent and extending the Brundle gridwalk was a good move, but Legard has been a bit of a disappointment and the whole coverage lacks depth at times.
The beeb is so much better!
- No Ad's
- The chain
- No Allen
- iPlayer
- Red button
- good website
- No Ad's
- The chain
- No Allen
- iPlayer
- Red button
- good website
Well said. While I support BBC programming and the concept of the BBC, I avoid BBC News like the plague. It no longer reports truths and facts, no matter how politically inconvenient they may be. Instead it increasingly appears to be "the news that NuLab want you to hear."
The surprising fact is that while BBC programming covers a wide range of interests and tastes, often more highbrow than any commercial channel offering, BBC News works in reverse, and treats everyone like an idiot. Witness the BBC News site, where paragraphs are just one sentence long. Admire the simplistic language used by BBC News, stooping to the lowest common denominator. Observe the choice of words frequently used in BBC News output, and more tellingly the words they don't use and the things they gloss over, which at best are just a single journalist's bias towards the state, and at worst a deliberate political editorial effort to produce a state-friendly output.
Of course, I'm sure this has always been the way to some extent. Hell, part of the core roles of the BBC during war time (both hot and cold) was to act as a govt mouthpiece, spreading propaganda, public information films, etc. The BBC and GPO were effectively complete state control and monopoly of our television and communications infrastructure.
And yet for a time, at least that I can remember in the late 1990s and early 2000s with the Iraq war affair that Becky mentioned, it felt we had a BBC that was genuinely independent and not afraid to embarass the government when the opposition political parties are too useless to do it instead. That time has passed, and when it comes to political or significant issues, I hold BBC News in the same regard that I do Al-Jazeera and FOX News.
i.e. utter shite.
I agree that BBC news isn't what it once was...but if you think BBC news is utter shit and regarding everyone like an idiot, what do you regard ITV and Sky news as? They really are utter shite, and make the BBC news look like the most unbiased, highbrow news you'll ever see.
Channel 4 news for me. At least they treat the viewer as someone with a modicum of intelligence.
i just want to watch the race, not hear some guy go on and on and on about what he considers interesting.
BBC Or ITV?
(79 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG